Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV11909, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV11909 Hearing Date: March 7, 2024 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
ESYA KANDINOVA, Plaintiff(s), vs.
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ET AL.,
Defendant(s). | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) | CASE NO: 22STCV11909
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE
Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. March 7, 2024 |
I. Background
On April 7, 2022, plaintiff Esya Kandinova (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants City of Beverly Hills, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, California Department of Transportation, and 9090 Wilshire, L.P. for damages arising from a trip and fall on a sidewalk. Trial is currently set for October 10, 2024.
Defendant 9090 Wilshire, L.P. now seeks an order permitting Larry Lum (“Applicant”) to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action. The motion is unopposed.
II. Legal Standard
An out-of-state lawyer, not admitted to practice in California, may be admitted pro hac vice—i.e., to appear and take part in a particular action only. Applications for such admission are generally heard as law and motion matters. (CRC Rule 9.40.)
To be eligible for admission pro hac vice: (1) the applicant must be admitted to practice before a U.S. court, or the highest court of any state or territory; (2) he or she must not be a California resident, nor regularly engaged in practice or other business here; and (3) a member of the California Bar must be associated as attorney of record in the case. (CRC Rule 9.40(a).)
A verified application must be filed stating (1) the applicant's residence and office addresses; (2) the court or courts in which he or she is admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that he or she is currently in good standing in such courts; (4) that he or she has not been suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) the title and case number of any California action in which he or she has applied to appear pro hac vice during the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and (6) the name, address and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar who is attorney of record. (CRC Rule 9.40(d)—filing fee must accompany application.) Copies of the application must be served by mail upon all parties who have appeared in the action, and also upon the State Bar at its San Francisco office at least 16 court days before the hearing (notice governed by CCP § 1005). A fee (currently $50) must be paid to the State Bar. (CRC Rule 9.40.)
In this case, the application fully satisfies CRC 9.40. Applicant establishes that he is licensed in the State of New York and State of Nevada, and that he is in good standing. Within the preceding two years, Applicant has filed three applications to appear pro hac vice; all three applications were granted. Applicant declares he is not a California resident and does not regularly work in California. Licensed California attorney, Silviana Dumitrescu of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, is associated as counsel in this case. Applicant declares Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP paid the fee to the State Bar on his behalf. Additionally, the proof of service attached to the moving papers shows the State Bar has been served with the application and given notice of the hearing date.
Therefore, the motion for admission pro hac vice is GRANTED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿
Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿
If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿
Dated this 6th day of March 2024
|
|
| Hon. Michelle C. Kim Judge of the Superior Court
|